“For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”

Hebrews 7:26

There is nothing in the entire universe after the fall, at least insofar as we finite sinners can grasp it, that is completely perfect—without the slightest defect, remaining forever in the state that you ever perceived it in. And yet the Christian has beheld such a One, and in the one instance that we need, given our state, in what God has provided in His Son. 

A recent survey on the theology of American Evangelicals found that nearly 20% percent of so-called “Scripture engaged” individuals thought the following statement to be true, that: “When he lived on earth, Jesus Christ was human and committed sins, like other people.” In fact, even the way the question is structured is prejudiced toward the maxim that to err is human, and thus to be human in any world that God creates is to err—is to sin. But is that so? We will answer this by unfolding the doctrine in four points:

1. CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS IN ITS CAUSE

2. CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS IN ITS NECESSITY

3. CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS IN ITS ACCOMPLISHMENT

4. CHRIST’S SINLESSNESS IN ITS HEAVENLY END

Doctrine. Christ without sin—in either His nature or action—was necessary to our salvation and a coming world where sin is no more.  

Christ’s Sinlessness in its Cause

The first thing we have to do is some heavy-duty theology. And theologians will speak of the impeccability of Christ. Note that this goes beyond saying that Jesus “just so happen” to not sin, nor even that it was God’s immutable decree that He would not sin (which is true of course), but that Jesus could not sin. This instantly raises two questions: first, is He not less human by such an inability? and second, in what does this inability consist—something about his divinity or something about his humanity, or both?  

But it is inevitable to get deeper into what we mean by saying that He could not have sinned. What exactly do we mean by this? Because in terms of His human nature—if we consider Adam as being made perfect at the beginning and yet mutable—it would seem that there must be a possibility. But we distinguish. All possibilities of sinning were made impossible by three other facts that converge: first, by the power of the Holy Spirit in Him; and second, in His being made perfect humanity from the first; but then third, the union of His human nature to the divine was a union from the first.

Is it Nestorian (even Pelagian) to deny to the human Christ non posse peccare? This was the contention of Dabney in the nineteenth century, and Mark Jones today, that even several Reformed luminaries can tend toward Nestorianism in their insistence “that a being must be peccable in order to experience temptation, to be meritorious for resisting it, and to be an exemplar and encouragement to us, who are tempted.”1 It should also be pointed out that Dabney (and Jones) were not saying that this view is guilty of full blown Pelagianism. To be guilty of that (as one Dorner was in Dabney’s day) one would have to cast Jesus in the role of Second Adam in such a way that a recapitulation of the original probation occurred: “a meritorious growth or progress of Christ’s humanity from peccability to impeccability, by virtue of the holy use of His initial contingency and self-determination of will.”2 Moreover, for Pelagius at least, that this was a model for the potential sinlessness of other men.

At any rate, all three of those points come together in the manner of His conception. 

“And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God’” (Lk. 1:35).

In other words, as with the First Adam, the Second Adam was made perfect as to human nature; but unlike the First Adam, Jesus is immutable and omnipotent and perfectly holy.

A. W. Pink argued from both the divine immutability and omnipotence to conclude that Christ’s impeccability made sin an absolute impossibility; and moreover, from the difference between Adam’s condition and Christ’s:

“Sinless angels fell, sinless Adam fell: they were but creatures, and creaturehood and mutability are, really, correlative terms. But was not the manhood of Christ created? Yes, but it was never placed on probation, it never had a separate existence. From the very first moment of its conception in the virgin’s womb, the humanity of Christ was taken into union with His Deity; and therefore could not sin.”3

And yet, even there, this is not the whole story, because, as the early church fathers all agreed—Whatever the Son did not assume, He could not redeem. Jesus could not defeat sin for us by His divine activity alone. In order to represent us, his obedience must be as a Man.

Ultimately, we explain the negative by the positive. Why did Christ not sin? His whole heart was for holiness and righteousness. He said, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work” (Jn. 4:34). We are told that this is true of His motivating reason in Himself in the Incarnation.

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me … Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book’” (Heb. 10:5, 7).

But we are also told this about the quality of his rule: “The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness” (Ps. 45:6-7).

Christ’s Sinlessness in its Necessity

I said in our Big Idea that Christ without sin, in either His nature or action, was necessary to the gospel. There are a few reasons for this.

In order to represent his people, it was necessary that Jesus was born sinless and resisted all temptation to sin by virtue of his human mind and will, which explains the agonizing statement at Gethsemane: “nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will” (Mat. 26:39).

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15).

But the author of Hebrews goes further. We not only need a human Savior who reveals to us God sympathizing with us, but also One who can represent us because He has been through the fires like us, yet, unlike us, passed through with perfection. Here’s how it says that:

“Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted” (Heb. 2:17-18).

A sinless representative is needed for a very simple reason. A sinner cannot represent himself before a holy God, anymore than darkness can make its case for the Light to accept it. How bad are things on our own? It was said of the generation of Noah that, “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). But other places like Psalm 14:1-3 and Paul’s citation of that passage in Romans 3:10-12 would teach us that this is true of every generation ever since.

With every breath, you and I inhale grace, but exhale sin. So whatever God accepts to make things right must be a perfectly acceptable thing:

“you were ransomed … with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Pet. 1:18, 19).

“You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin” (1 Jn. 3:5); “and in him there is no falsehood” (Jn. 7:18). The sin-bearer must bear no sin Himself. Both His obedience to the law and Him being the spotless sacrifice—both required not one single sin.

Christ’s Sinlessness in its Accomplishment

If  Jesus simply is sinless by virtue of his perfect nature and his will, why speak of an accomplishment? Well, if it’s necessary—it’s necessary to do. There’s a doing. Positively stated, Jesus obeyed the law for His people. The purpose was that His record would count for us: “Christ Jesus, who became to us … righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30). Romans 5:18-19 gives us the same, that “by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”

Now the first people to fail the test about the sinlessness of Jesus were the Pharisees. Real enemies of God. The most prideful sorts of people. Jesus posed the question to them: “Which one of you convicts me of sin?” (Jn. 8:46). And why did He have to throw this question at them? Well, it is because they were accusing Him. 

Friends, the idea of Jesus having sinned cannot be contained on a survey form. It’s an accusation. Is that what you want to come from your mouth in God’s courtroom on the Last Day? The Bible is clear: “He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth” (1 Pet. 2:22).

And so we ought not let deceit be found in our mouths about this sinlessness.

Christ’s Sinlessness in its Heavenly End

In this text we began with, Hebrews 7:26, the context is how Jesus fits the role of our Great High Priest. 

“For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.”

A priest that acts on behalf of sinners in heaven must be a heavely priest. So a few verses earlier, it says, “but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them” (vv. 24-25). The ONE who leads us into heaven, our only hope—the one who brings us to God in holiness must Himself be of that same holiness.

APPLICATION

Use 1. Correction. Movies and shows (The Chosen just being the latest example) that attempt to make Jesus “more human” operate from a fundamental error. Toward this end, they make him “more sympathetic” (so they think), “more relatable” (according to who?), “more jovial” or “more vulnerable.” In all these ways, they think, we need a Jesus who is more human — i.e. More. Like. Us. 

But I want to grab these writers and producers by the shirt and say, “You must be under the assumption that you and I are fully human. What else can you mean by making Jesus meet our standard of a man?” But what if Jesus was the only fully developed human, and the rest of us who are in Christ await that fullness of restored humanity?

Use 2. Imitation. If you worship Jesus, then worship Him for His sinless purity too. Worship Christ for all of His holiness. We are not fully human without holiness, so that the holiness of His humanity forms the prototype of what we will be. Paul taught this—that we are “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom. 8:29). 

And notice that we do not become like Christ in sinlessness by our efforts. There will be effort for the Christian, and that effort plays an important role in killing sin in our daily lives. But the order matters. John Owen wrote, 

“But no man shall ever become ‘like him’ by bare imitation of his actions … [but by] this beholding of the glory of Christ … The dawning of heaven is in it … Unless you value it, unless you esteem it as such a privilege, you will not enjoy it; and that which is not valued according to its worth is despised.”4 

On the Last Day, we are told that we will be like him, because we will see him as he is” (1 Jn. 3:2). If you behold the true Jesus, you will never be looking at a single defect, a single imperfection, the slightest blameworthy thing.

We are given Christ—without any sin. Do you want heaven without any sin? Are are we indifferent to the sin part? If we are, then we are indifferent to heaven, and therefore indifferent to our very soul. What should you want more than a world without sin? Your souls without sin? To know happiness and holiness no longer as strangers to each other? 

Then you must know Jesus in this way. 

__________________

1. R. L. Dabney, Systematic Theology, 470-71.

2. Dabney, Systematic Theology, 471.

3. A. W. Pink, Studies in the Scriptures 1932.

4. John Owen, The Glory of Christ (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2008), 68.